Bardes v. Hutchinson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1901
• Citation: 85 N.W. 797,113 Iowa 610
• Parties: BARDES v. HUTCHINSON, JUDGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

113 Iowa 610

85 N.W. 797

BARDES

v.HUTCHINSON, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 13, 1901.

This case is brought to this court by writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the district court of Sioux county, Hutchinson, J., presiding, in which judgment was rendered against plaintiff in a proceeding wherein it is claimed the court had no jurisdiction of plaintiff. The facts will be found in the opinion. Judgment annulled.Lohr, Gardiner & Lohr and P. D. Van Oesterhout, for plaintiff.

Hutchinson & Plank and Wm. Milchrist, for defendant.

WATERMAN, J.

Plaintiff is the trustee in bankruptcy of one Frank T. Walker, a merchant, formerly engaged in business at Hawarden. As such trustee, plaintiff filed a petition in equity in the district court of Sioux county against the First National Bank of Hawarden, the Bank of Alcester, S. D., Charles R. Allen, and Frank T. Walker, setting up the following facts: That about March 1, 1899, Walker was adjudged a bankrupt under the federal statute, and plaintiff was appointed trustee; that prior thereto, and on the 16th day of January, 1899, Walker was indebted to various persons for goods sold him in the amount of $12,000, to the First National Bank of Hawarden in the sum of $1,000, and to the Bank of Alcester, in South Dakota, in the sum of $450; that said Walker was at this time insolvent. It is further charged that on the date last named Walker made a pretended sale of his stock of merchandise to defendant Charles R. Allen, for the consideration of about $1,764, for which a promissory note was given that matured about August 1, 1899. On the same day Walker transferred said note to the Hawarden bank for about the sum of $1,629.35, of which about $175 was paid by said bank to Walker, and the remainder was applied in payment of his indebtedness to it and to the Bank of Alcester. It is alleged, further, that Allen was not the real purchaser of said merchandise, but that he acted for the Hawarden bank, which in fact was the buyer. And at the time of these transactions all of said parties engaged in them had reason to believe, and did believe and know, that defendant Walker was insolvent, and it was the intention in selling said stock of goods and transferring said note to give a preference over other creditors to the two defendant banks. Wherefore it is prayed that the note and the conveyance of the stock of merchandise be declared fraudulent and void, and held invalid against plaintiff, and that defendants be compelled to account for the property and profits, and that plaintiff have judgment for the value of such property. In due time an answer was filed, in which the sale of the stock of merchandise to Allen, and the giving by him of the promissory note and its transfer to the Hawarden bank, are admitted. It is averred that defendants had good reason at the time to believe that Walker was solvent. It is further said that the note so transferred to the bank has been fully paid. In another division of the answer, and the one that affords the ground for this controversy, the same facts are substantially admitted, the same allegation of belief on the part of defendants in the solvency of Walker is made, and then follows these paragraphs: “That, by reason of the assignment and delivery of said note by said Walker, this defendant became the absolute and unqualified owner thereof, and had a title thereto that was paramount and superior to any right, title, or interest thereto that may be claimed by the plaintiff. Whe...